<p>I would think it's a simple business move: If a person is willing to commit early on, they'll be a bit more willing to accept them... and their money, if paying full freight. If you look at their regular acceptance percentages, many colleges have a much fewer people actually enrolling once accepted. I'll use Dickinson as an example again: In regular decision, they accept 52%, but only 26% of those accepted actually enroll! It makes sense to make their college more accessible and a bit easier to get into if they get people to commit early on (74% accepted ED).</p>
<p>"How much do you think having lived in 4 countries and speaking 3 (and learning a 4th) helps? I didn't touch on this on my essays or app very much - was that a very big mistake?"</p>
<p>binarystar - I'm from a similar background (family moves around a lot cuz my dad's a diplomat) and I didn't really mention any of it in any of my essays so I'm getting worried too. However, my academic transcripts shows the schools and the addresses in the countries I've lived in so admissions should be able to tell I've been around a lot, and the fact that I'm an Asian who has lived most of the time in Europe does stick out. I'm sure the same goes for you. When you list the schools you've been to with their addresses the admissions should be able to see that you're a global nomad. Also, your SAT or other exam scores should show your proficiency in languages. I do Brit A-levels, and scored well in foreign languages so it shows I do speak them fluently as well as the fact that my school teaches some Spanish obligatory subjects.<br>
I kinda regret not talking about it in any of the essays but with the many int'l students who move around contantly, I don't think the advantage would have been that much greater. Don't worry, I don't think it be such a big prob for you either, btw, what subjects did you choose for your essays, since you didn't pick the thing bout being so international?</p>
<p>well, acceptance rates are high for ED, but there is a third variable: more qualified students tend to apply early.</p>
<p>abummb05, I don't think you are correct in saying that "more qualified students tend to apply early." From everything I've read, the pool that applies early and regular does not vary very much... but where it does vary, it's often the wealthier students who are not in need of financial aid that apply early.</p>
<p>just a quick add on, i have read that the RD pool at most ivy's is 10 times harder than the ED pool, b/c you have all the 1500 plus people thinking they can get into all of the ivy's and wanting their choice, so in that sense ED can be a big advantage at anywhere, but lets say at harvard, they know they are going to get tons of 1550's in RD, and tons of other great students, so they probably have the same standards RD and ED, so ED gives no advantage except for an eariler decision, hence ED</p>
<p>If anybody really want to find the answer to how much ED helps, please read the book "Early Admissions Game"...it's a really interesting read. And hopefully, it will put in perspective the whole process of ED/EA, and debunk some arguments made under this thread. ED helps. Period.</p>
<p>"Well, first, ;ool up the difference between average and median. Amazing what a bunch of athletes can do to the average."</p>
<p>If you use the 25-75% you get a decent representation of the average SAT at the school. Also, if you use the median you'll get a decent idea. And to say that 50% of the top schools are filled with legacies, URMs, and RECRUITED athletes is erroneous. Here at Penn, your average kid has 1400ish SATs, was involved in a ton of clubs, and was in the top 2-3% of their class at a top HS. There are your published authors, pro sports players (I know a few pro-tennis players), etc...but they make up maybe 3-5% of the class. It's similar at HYPS. The students there have a bit higher SATs, there's more valedictorians, and the % that make up those truely "extraordinary" is a bit higher.</p>
<p>Well, just to add more fuel to the fire, the President of Yale, in the October Yale magazine, says that the legacies at Yale have BETTER stats than the nonlegacies.</p>
<p>Also, I interviewed at Yale for many years, until just recently, and we took PLENTY of kids who were not published authors, Olympic athletes, and children of millionaires. Environman is right. The superstars are a very small percentage of the class.</p>
<p>Listen to Catch-22. He or she is right about ED. The book he/she recommends is NOT anecdotal, but actual evidence that ED helps - in some cases in helps tremendously, especially, as another poster said, in schools that manage yield.</p>
<p>Look at every recruited football, hockey, baseball, basketball player....male and female. Look at the minorities, race based, ses based. The music, art, writing prodigies. The wealthy. The accomplished. These are a very significant portion of any ivy class. They are the kids that can be at or below average. Yes, Penn has more just solid top 3% kids than HYP and even most other ivies, but it's still a stretch for a low 1400, top 10%, white or Asian. Penn also takes a ton of under average score legacies ED. 3-5%, are you kidding?</p>
<p>You can't go by a college's average SAT's, you have to go by the school within the colleges average SAT's. My SAT score puts me slightly above Cornell's 75% range, but barely above the middle of the Engineering averages. But maybe in the Arts and Sciences Colleges my score is only in the 20% range, or maybe in another it puts me at the 95%. When you try and see if you fit into a colleges SAT range, look at the school you are applying to and judge based on that range. A 1550 for one kid could be the ticket in without a doubt at a college, but for another it could barely distinguish them at that same college, since they are applying to different schools. Also as for saying that the athletes and minorites bring down the averages, that is probably not totally true. Harvard will not just take any old minority, just b/c they are a minority, and it is false to assume that that minority has crappy stats. There are many minorities who excell and are amazing, and I'm sure harvard and other top schools gets those students. As for athletes, many student athletes are incredibly smart, and why would a school risk an athlete failing out if they didn't think they could have a decent chance at passing, this would mean that most athletes do have competitive stats.</p>
<p>"Look at every recruited football, hockey, baseball, basketball player....male and female."</p>
<p>You make an assumption that every one of those kids is "unqualified," meaning their stats are under the school's average. Unless you can back that up with some stats of your own, I'd not make that assumption. </p>
<p>You think Penn's class consists of more than 3-5% super-applicants (the pro players, the authors, etc)? No chance. I know a LOT of kids at all of the ivies and most are your overachieving student...but they aren't amazing.</p>
<p>This is the last time I'll say this and those of you who want to remain in denial are welcomed to: URMs and athletes, as groups, have lower stats at ivy schools. This is FACT. Are there URMs and athletes with above average stats? Duhhh, of course. But the fact is as groups, their stats are lower. Almost no one flunks out of an ivy. The schools are careful not to accept kids that can't make it. But those groups and other spevial interests make up the vast majprity of the lower 50%. FACT. No insult to anyone meant! I have been accused of trying to get kids not to apply. Not my point at all. 3 years ago I looked at the average scores and thought I had a decent shot at ivies. I came to understand that back then I really didn't. I was a Val with low 1500s, lots of ECs, but nothing extraordinary. For me, like so many others, the thin envelopes came. Than I learned what was really necessary. Something extraordinary and set about to get that. Same scores and that extra something got the fat envelope. I was pretty devestated having been at the top of my class, a leader in clubs and scores above average not to get in before I understood what the average really represented. Then it totally made sense. We have a bunch of kids here reading US News telling kids they are a lock for being slightly above average in scores. What if these kids believe you and don't have a good backup plan????????????????????</p>
<p>There are two battling extremes here. One is those of us who think we're lock if we have SAT scores over 1500 and high GPA's. The other is Canuckeh...who for some reason is trying to scare the living hell out of everybody. It's true in general minorities and athletes make up the lower end of the academic spectrum at ivy league schools, but it's not in as significant numbers as he would have you believe. Basically, if you the high scores, the high gpas, the good recs, the good essays, and some decent extra-curriculars you have a decent shot at any school. If you follow canuck's argument to its logical extension the top colleges are evidently made up of only kids who have done absolutely extraordinary things and URMS, athletes, legacies. I'd say these people make up 50% of most schools...the other 50% is your average really solid applicant who has a lot to offer but hasn't yet cured cancer. ED helps...enough with the scare tactics.</p>
<p>Most schools? I have been clear that I'm talking about the ultra elite. Scare tactics? There is a reason 9 out of 10 are rejected from top schools. There would be far fewer rejects if there was a clear understanding of who gets accepted. Of course this would then mess up the top school's low yield rates and high reject rate, so why would they promote reality? US News has encouraged schools to pretend you have a chance being unextraordinary and having average stats. Forgive me for wanting to debunk the BS. There are a lot of CC posters about to understand reality this May. I just wish someone had told me the truth! Sorry to interupt the mass denial!</p>
<p>Most schools? I have been clear that I'm talking about the ultra elite. Scare tactics? There is a reason 9 out of 10 are rejected from top schools. There would be far fewer rejects if there was a clear understanding of who gets accepted. Of course this would then mess up the top school's low yield rates and high reject rate, so why would they promote reality? US News has encouraged schools to pretend you have a chance being unextraordinary and having average stats. Forgive me for wanting to debunk the BS. There are a lot of CC posters about to understand reality this May. I just wish someone had told me the truth! Sorry to interupt the mass denial! I'm already in, I want to stop pain, not inflict fright!</p>
<p>Actually, that reasoning is faulty.</p>
<p>You're telling me you want applicants to be self-selective like those who apply to Reed and St. John's (not to mention New College of USF, Marboro and Bennington)? </p>
<p>Wow. Talk about denial. The reason acceptance rates are low has more to do with the amount of seats in a particular class. And, because the better schools use a holistic approach to admissions, it in not only the best scorers and people with the highest gpas that get into them. Thus, just being a grind with few ECs won't get you in the door. That is the truth.</p>
<p>USNews does not encourage mass delusion. Please. The middle-50%ile is used to show the typical stats at a given school, so that applicants can gauge where they are in an applicant pool. Thus, it clarifies a specific measure that students look to before applying to specific schools that is more illuminating than using the average SAT score--like they did 10-15 years ago.</p>
<p>Encouraging people to not apply to the Ivies and better schools who do not score 1400-1450 (depending on which post you stand by) only makes it easier for 1450+ scores to get into the colleges, making test stats even more important than they are currently. Why would anyone want to do this and make an incoming class less accomplished (aside from numbers) and less diverse?</p>
<p>You can all believe blainco and make the acceptance rate get lower and lower. The more 1400s that apply to HYP, the happier they are. The more selective they look. Yrt the only issue is the denial candidates like Blaineko. Again, where do you go?</p>
<p>Canuck,</p>
<p>Here is my response from the other thread, since you obviously missed it:</p>
<p>Like I said in other posts, I'm applying to Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Haverford, Colgate, Connecticut C, after taking a couple of years off after hgih school because of a severe illness in my familty.</p>
<p>I did get into Yale & Columbia as a first-year. UPenn negged me, while Carleton waitlisted. Got into other non-Ivies: UChicago, Northwestern, Duke, Pomona, Johns Hopkins. Why? Does it make a difference?</p>
<p>Also, I did not ever say that anyone was a 'lock' for any Ivy. Thus, I'm pretty sure that admissions patterns for most of the people I've responded to will be close. It is not always enough to just have grades and scores without showing dedication and depth in extra-curricular activities, and decent recs and essays, but it isn't so difficult that excellent students without additional tip factors will be displaced by URMs and special admits, like you seem to think. Nor, do I believe, based on reading primary and secondary sources, that ED is of no help--like you claim on another thread. ED/SCEA does help with respect to higher admissions rates.</p>
<p>Again, I'm waiting for your SAT scores? Never mind that I asked like 4-5 times. Right, who is the poser?</p>
<p>PS--if you missed it, during my senior year I was accepted to several Ivies and negged at another. You're telling me that I have no experience with admissions to selective schools? Nevermind that I have friends, relatives and family friends that have worked in selective college admissions in various capacities, and have attended Ivies and Top-10 LACs. Wow.</p>
<p>If more 1400s apply to HYP, they're more selective because they can only accept a certain number of people because their freshman class can only be so large, not because they just naturally believe these people aren't good enough and deserve rejection. Yes, 1400s may not even be closed to guaranteed admission into HYP, but you must remember, these colleges can be so selective because so many people apply and thus they can easily accept only the top candidates with perfect scores and the like. If less people applied and few of them had 1500+ scores, than obviously more 1400s would be accepted.</p>
<p>I whole-heartedly agree with canuckeh's point. However, I believe that if one already is special and unique, and applies early, that is when one is more likely to benefit from ED.</p>